Inherent powers cannot secure concurrent sentences after the Supreme Court has rejected that relief.

The petitioner had been convicted in five cases arising from alleged conspiracies to create forged insurance documents and obtain compensation awards.

In the first four cases, he received sentences of up to two years; in the fifth, he was initially sentenced to five years, later reduced in revision. The sentences in each case were ordered to run concurrently internally, but no court directed that the sentences across the five cases run concurrently.

The convictions were upheld on appeal and revision; the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s request for concurrent sentences under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and later dismissed his review petition.

He then sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relying also on his age and medical conditions.

Whether the High Court could use its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to direct the sentences in the five cases to run concurrently after the Supreme Court had rejected the petitioner’s request for that relief under Section 427(1) CrPC

Whether the petitioner’s medical conditions justified directing the sentences to run concurrently

Section 427(1) CrPC establishes the general rule that a subsequent sentence commences after the expiry of the earlier sentence, while empowering the court to direct concurrent service in an appropriate case; that discretion must be exercised judicially, considering the offences and the circumstances, rather than mechanically.

The Court referred to Benson v. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307; Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 53; P.N. Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2017) 14 SCC 719; Vicky @ Vikas v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 540; and Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 3 SCC 184, among other authorities, for the discretionary nature of concurrency and the relevance of the facts of each case.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but the Court treated that jurisdiction as unavailable to grant the requested relief in the circumstances of this case, particularly given the Supreme Court’s prior rejection of the same request.

The Court considered that the five convictions arose from separate cases involving alleged forgery, conspiracy and attempted cheating, and that the petitioner’s convictions had been affirmed through the appellate process.

It held that concurrency is discretionary, not automatic, and found no basis to exercise inherent jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour: the trial courts had not ordered concurrency, no request had been made before them, and the Supreme Court had already rejected the petitioner’s request under Section 427(1) CrPC.

The Court also noted that the prayer was framed incorrectly, as it sought to make the sentences in the earlier cases concurrent with the sentence in the later case.

It declined to treat the petitioner’s reported illnesses as grounds for concurrency, noting that he had received medical treatment and could be treated in prison or at a nearby government hospital.

It requested the Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy, to ensure that the petitioner received appropriate medical treatment, either in the prison hospital or at a nearby government hospital.